Talk:Marquess of Anglesey

Numbering of Barons Paget

The numbering seems wrong - I thought that female holders of a title continued the nunbering, so Elizabeth Paget was, though the first Baroness of the Paget line, 3rd Baroness Paget. But, if that's the case, then Sir Henry Bayly would be 10th Baron Paget, and neither 11th nor 9th as previously suggested.
Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 22:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea...I'll look it up in Complete Peerage when I get a chance, maybe. john 23:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My experience has been that female holders do not continue the numbering. In any case, Elizabeth's claim on the title my have been questionable. I say Bayly was probably the 9th Baron (certainly no higher than 10th). Source: thePeerage Mackensen 23:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Complete Peerage does number Elizabeth, because it works "according to modern doctrine" rather than by numbering only those who would have been regarded in their lifetime as peers. By this theory, Elizabeth succeeded her father when she was 4 months old. She never inherited his estates, which were entailed on heirs male. She died at the age of about two years. The "4th" Baron was regarded as Lord Paget on Elizabeth's father's death, and no one alive at the time thought Elizabeth had inherited a title. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Judging from the article on William Paget, 1st Baron Paget, the 1911 writers didn't think she'd inherited anything. Mackensen 00:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, we count female holders in the line on other pages, such as Viscount Cobham.

James F. (talk) 00:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can someone actually confirm the title was created to heirs general? It's quite late on for such creations. Also I see dating for the barony quoted here as 1553 and elsewhere 1549. Which is in error?Alci12

Listing of Earls

What are you using for your sources? Could you please cite them so others can look at them too? Also, Who's Who of Parliament lists Henry Paget (1821-1880), first son of the 2nd Marquess of Anglesey as an Earl of Uxbridge (Stenton, M. Who's Who of British Members of Parliament, Volume I 1832-1885. Hassocks: The Harvester Press Limited. 1976. p.388). I noticed you don't have him listed in the Earl of Uxbridge section. Any particular reason? (134.29.59.227 21:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Wrong sentence

I have removed the sentence " the Marquess defeated Napoleon after having lost his leg by amputation in the field.", as it is well known Uxbridge lost his leg at the end of the battle, never resumed command on that day and of course did not defeat Napoleon single-handely.93.21.171.222 (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marquess of Anglesey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150306051137/http://www.baronetage.org/official-roll-of-the-baronets/ to http://www.baronetage.org/official-roll-of-the-baronets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

succession to the barony

Template:Xt (refs omitted)

It appears from the chart that Lady Henrietta and her son Matthew are ahead of (4) for the barony. —Tamfang (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The text implies that the entire male line has to die out before the Barony can pass through the female line, which isn't the case. It's also wrong that Matthew Megarry is the senior female-line descendant: his mother is. If the current Marquess and (1) to (3) were to die, (4) would become Earl of Uxbridge but Lady Henrietta Megarry would become suo jure Baroness Paget. Proteus (Talk) 19:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)